Woolwich Terrorist

This essay is about the attack in Woolwich that happened in 2013, which was when a dead British soldier was found beheaded and a black British man was holding a bloody meat cleaver and he had blood on his hands, it was evident that he had killed the man. The regulator for this Case Study was OFCOM and the event was sensationalised on broadcast TV. This was shown on Channel 4 before watershed, which means that children were able to see the footage being shot, it also had received 700-800 complaints because people found it was too graphic for children to view with the blood, the weapon and a dead body. The most that companies get for not following the regulations is a fine and sometimes their licence is revoked.

Some Social and political factors of this case study are, the footage was shot on a mobile phone, making it easier to upload to the internet straight away. This is an issue because that meant that anyone could view the footage. OFCOM couldn’t really regulate this because it was uploaded straight away and also they only protect what comes on the TV but not the web. Also the people who was involved in the terrorist attack was British born citizens which is worrying for the people who live in Britain as it shows that anyone could be potentially be a terrorist.

There are some arguments and debates about this case study. Even though the public complained about the footage being shown before the watershed, OFCOM had justified the brutality and said it was public interest, it was said that the content was editorially justified.

This event was sensationalised and thus created a stir in the public, which lead to moral panic, this is because the terrorist was from the British society originally and that made people aware that anyone among them could potentially be a danger to their daily lives. This spread fear throughout society because the public were scared that anyone that they knew could possibly harm or be a danger to them and their families. In a way some people have become desensitized because they weren’t shocked that another terrorist attack happened because they are used to seeing it in the news all the time.

The regulator in this Case study I don’t think was effective because they couldn’t really do anything as the footage was already uploaded on the internet, on YouTube making it easier for people including children to find it. When people did complain as it was shown on the TV the complaints were upheld and they supported it being shown on TV before the watershed.

In conclusion I would use this case study because it is an example of how OFCOM can’t always regulate certain things and also how they didn’t do their job to protect children and any vulnerable adults that may have been watching the incident also because they supported what was shown by justifying the brutality.